Dataset Information

Nursing interventions to cover patients' basic needs in the intensive care context - A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To examine the content, theoretical frameworks and effectiveness of nursing interventions utilizing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Design

A systematic review and narrative synthesis following the guidelines of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis checklist.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SweMed and Cochrane controlled trials register (CENTRAL) databases for studies evaluating interventions primarily delivered by nurses in the ICU. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias.

Results

Twenty-two studies were included, whereas only seven studies used a theoretical framework. The interventions were heterogeneous in content, duration and choice of PROMs. Outcomes were related to covering patients' and families' basic needs, described by Henderson as essential functions of nursing. Several studies reported positive intervention effects, and nurses' communication and psychosocial care were considered essential components of nursing interventions in the ICU.

SUBMITTER: Larsen MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8685812 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:According to the self-determination theory, individuals' basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness should be satisfied for optimal psychological growth. The satisfaction of these needs seems to vary due to changes in a person's social context, and the outcomes of the satisfaction of these needs also vary along with the needs. Despite several studies investigating daily and weekly variations in need satisfaction and its correlates, no systematic investigation exists. This study aimed to conduct a narrative synthesis of existing quantitative diary studies of basic psychological needs in the work context. We specifically aimed to evaluate if psychological need satisfaction varies daily and weekly and judge whether they vary more daily or weekly. Additionally, we also aimed to review the literature regarding the relations between daily or weekly variations in need satisfaction and its assumed antecedents and outcomes. We included peer-reviewed articles in English that measured work-related basic psychological needs using a quantitative diary study design. Database searching (Web of Science, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, and Scopus) led to the extraction of 2 251 records by February 2020. Duplicates were removed, the remaining records were screened (n = 820), and 30 articles were assessed using eligibility criteria. Two authors individually conducted the screening and eligibility processes to manage selection bias. In total, 21 articles were included in the final review. The review indicated that basic psychological need satisfaction showed considerable within-person variation and was more dynamic daily (compared to weekly). Job demands, job resources, organisational resources, and individual characteristics appeared to associate with these variations. The organisational context seemed to matter the most for need satisfaction. Variations in need satisfaction were also related to employee well-being, performance, and motivation. Despite the small number of published studies (particularly for weekly studies), our results indicate that researchers should pay attention to within-person variations in need satisfaction. Measuring daily need satisfaction could be prioritised. Different antecedents and outcomes seem to be associated with different needs. Thus, when needs are viewed as distinct constructs instead of unidimensional ones, one can derive greater insights. The study is funded by the National Research Foundation.

Project description:Introduction: Health is impacted by a wide range of nonmedical factors, collectively termed the social determinants of health (SDoH). As the mechanisms by which these factors influence wellness and disease continue to be uncovered, health systems are beginning to assess their roles in addressing patient's social needs. This study seeks to identify and analyze clinic-based interventions aimed at addressing patients' social needs in perinatal care, including prenatal, antepartum, and postpartum care. Methods: We conducted a search of six databases through May 2020 for articles describing screening or intervention activities addressing social needs in at least one SDoH domain as defined by Healthy People 2020. We required that studies include pregnant or postpartum women and be based in a clinical setting. Results: Thirty-one publications describing 26 unique studies were identified. Most studies were either randomized-controlled trials (n=10) or observational studies (n=7) and study settings were both public and private. The mean age of women ranged from 17.4 to 34.1 years. Most studies addressed intimate partner violence (n=19). The next most common need addressed was social support (n=5), followed by food insecurity (n=3), and housing (n=2). Types of interventions varied from simple screening to ongoing counseling and case management. There was wide heterogeneity in outcomes investigated. Most IPV interventions that included counseling or ongoing support resulted in reduced IPV recurrence and severity. No intervention with only screening showed a reduction in rate of IPV. Conclusion: This systematic review shines light on several avenues to support pregnant and postpartum women through interventions that embed acknowledgment of social needs and actions addressing these needs into the clinical environment. The results of this review suggest that interventions with counseling or ongoing support may show promise in alleviating social risk factors and improving some clinical outcomes. However, the strength of this evidence is limited by the paucity of studies. More rigorous research is imperative to augment the knowledge of social needs interventions, especially in domains outside of IPV.

Project description:The objective of this review of reviews was to identify the reasons for missed nursing care and to shed light on how nurses prioritize what care they miss. Missed nursing care refers to essential nursing activities or tasks that are omitted or not completed as planned during a patient's care. This omission can result from various factors, such as staffing shortages, time constraints, or communication issues, and it can potentially compromise the quality of patient care and safety. Identifying and addressing missed nursing care is crucial to ensure optimal patient outcomes and the well-being of healthcare professionals. To be included, reviews had to use the systematic review process, be available in the English language, examine missed care in hospitals and at home, and include participants who were over eighteen years old. The review intended to answer the following questions: 'Why nursing care is missed?' 'How nurses prioritize what care they missed?'. An umbrella review was developed guided by the JBI methodology and using PRISMA-ScR. A total of 995 reviews were identified. According to the inclusion criteria, only nine reviews were finally evaluated. The findings indicate that care is missed due to staffing levels, organizational problems, and the working climate. Prioritization of care depends on acute care needs as well as educational and experiential background. Missed nursing care is associated with patient safety and the quality of provided nursing care. Specifically, it has negative impacts on patients, healthcare professionals, and healthcare service units. Organizational characteristics, nursing unit features, and the level of teamwork among nursing staff affect Missed Nursing Care. Individual demographic characteristics of the staff, professional roles, work schedules, and adequate staffing may potentially contribute to the occurrence of Missed Nursing Care, which is why they are under investigation. However, further consideration is needed regarding the management of patient needs and nurse prioritization.

Project description:Aims and objectivesTo determine the effects of nursing interventions for people's nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs.BackgroundPatient experience of health care is sensitive to nursing quality. A refocus on fundamental nursing care is undermined by lack of evidence of effectiveness for interventions in core areas such as elimination, nutrition, mobility and hygiene.DesignSystematic review.MethodsWe searched for and included experimental studies on interventions by professionally qualified and unregistered nurses that addressed participants' nutrition, elimination, mobility and hygiene needs. We extracted data on scope, quality and results of studies followed by descriptive narrative synthesis of included study outcomes using a novel form of harvest plots.ResultsWe included 149 studies, 35 nutrition, 56 elimination, 16 mobility, 39 hygiene and three addressing two or more areas simultaneously (67 randomised controlled trials, 32 non-randomised controlled trials and 50 uncontrolled trials). Studies into interventions on participant self-management of nutrition (n = 25), oral health (n = 26), catheter care (n = 23) and self-management of elimination (n = 21) were the most prevalent. Most studies focussed their outcomes on observational or physiological measures, with very few collecting patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life, experience or self-reported symptoms. All but 13 studies were of low quality and at significant risk of bias. The majority of studies did not define primary outcomes, included multiple measures of identical concepts, used inappropriate analyses and did not conform to standard reporting quality criteria.ConclusionsThe current evidence for fundamental nursing care interventions is sparse, of poor quality and unfit to provide evidence-based guidance to practising nurses.Relevance to clinical practiceResearchers in nursing internationally should now undertake a programme of work to produce evidence for clinical practice in the fundamentals of care that is reliable, replicable and robust.

Project description:BackgroundInformal caregivers of critically ill patients in intensive care unit (ICUs) experience negative psychological sequelae that worsen after death. We synthesized outcomes reported from ICU bereavement interventions intended to improve informal caregivers' ability to cope with grief.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to October 2020.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bereavement interventions to support informal caregivers of adult patients who died in ICU.Data extractionTwo reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate. Narrative synthesis was conducted.Data synthesisBereavement interventions were categorized according to the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence three-tiered model of bereavement support according to the level of need: (1) Universal information provided to all those bereaved; (2) Selected or targeted non-specialist support provided to those who are at-risk of developing complex needs; and/or (3) Professional specialist interventions provided to those with a high level of complex needs. Outcome measures were synthesized according to core outcomes established for evaluating bereavement support for adults who have lost other adults to illness.ResultsThree studies of ICU bereavement interventions from 31 ICUs across 26 hospitals were included. One trial examining the effect of family presence at brain death assessment integrated all three categories of support but did not report significant improvement in emotional or psychological distress. Two other trials assessed a condolence letter intervention, which did not decrease grief symptoms and may have increased symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and a storytelling intervention that found no significant improvements in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, or complicated grief. Four of nine core bereavement outcomes were not assessed anytime in follow-up.ConclusionsCurrently available trial evidence is sparse and does not support the use of bereavement interventions for informal caregivers of critically ill patients who die in the ICU.